docs_clear_compiled

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the destructive scope. It explicitly states that compiled/synthesized articles are removed while raw chunks remain intact, making the data impact clear. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavioral trait is well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately identifies the action, scope, and what is preserved. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it affects, and what it does not. No additional return value or complex behavior needs explanation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'domain' is described in the schema as 'Domain name', and the description references it as 'from a domain' without additional details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much, but it also does not enrich the meaning of the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Clear' and the specific resource 'compiled/synthesized articles from a domain', and explicitly distinguishes from broader clearing operations by noting that raw chunks are kept intact. This differentiates it from sibling tools like docs_clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying that only compiled articles are cleared and raw chunks are preserved, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. Thus it offers clear context but no direct comparative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.